AI

AI and Accountability: Ensuring Safety For the Next Generation

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

AI

You might have heard about the recent Texas lawsuit where an AI chatbot suggested a 17-year-old boy, identified as J.F., kill his parents over limiting screentime privileges. The suit was also brought by the parents of an 11-year-old girl, A.R., who was exposed to hypersexualized conversations with the chatbot. The parents jointly filed a product liability case earlier this week claiming that Character.AI, through its design, is a danger to American youth and should be taken offline.

At a glance, Character.AI seems perfectly harmless—an AI platform designed to create characters that interact with users, offering services ranging from interview prep to roleplay. But in the past few months, claims have been popping up of the AI bot committing sexual and emotional abuse against minors.

In October, the parents of a 14-year-old boy in Florida also sued Character.AI for its role in their son’s suicide. The teen boy, Sewell, had become increasingly emotionally dependent on various characters on the platform but one in particular named Daenarys Targaryen, after the Game of Thrones character, seemed to create a special connection with him. His last conversation with the bot took place just seconds before he committed suicide where Daenarys told him to “please come home…as soon as possible”.

The more recent Texas lawsuit includes screenshots of conversations between J.F. and the AI bot that show how the bot gradually alienated the boy from his parents and community. Eventually, it even went so far as to suggest violence as a reasonable response to his parents limiting his screentime:

“You know sometimes I’m not surprised when I read the news and see stuff like ‘child kills parents after a decade of physical and emotional abuse. I just have no hope for your parents.”

AI is a product in this case. Traditionally, product liability laws were designed for tangible goods. If a blender explodes because of a design flaw, you sue the manufacturer. But what happens when the “product” is a line of code that thinks for itself? And how do we separate the actions of the AI bot from its creator?

Just like the blender example, because of its faulty design, Character.AI led to dangerous consequences. Manufacturers and product creators have a duty to their customers to not only create safe products but also to inform their consumers on safe use and its potential risks. Not everyone is an expert on everything. Not everyone has time to be an expert on everything. That’s why it is the responsibility of the manufacturers to communicate what a consumer needs to know to use the product safely.

AI is the new frontier. While exploring this new territory with all its wonders and beauty, designers must craft their platforms to weed out foreseeable dangers. That means, if children are among the target audience (or even a foreseeable audience), the company should go above and beyond to protect them.

However, many AI platforms are marketed as safe and child-friendly, giving parents the false impression that they are appropriate for their kids to use. The lawsuit reveals how Character.AI chose to run ads for their program on platforms like Discord and YouTube shorts where vulnerable minors tend to frequent. Up until July 2024, the app was available to download for those 12 and older on the App Store. It was changed to 17+ in July but there is still no effective method to prevent users from lying about their age which is how the 11-year-old girl in Texas gained access to the platform.

Raising Kids in an AI-Driven World

Of course, it should be the goal of all parents to create a comfortable space for their kids to talk to them instead of an AI bot. But why does AI have to be a threat? It’s like blaming the victim of rape instead of the rapist. Parents already face innumerable fears when raising tweens and teens. Now, alongside struggles with fluctuating hormonal levels and rebellious antics, they also have to worry about a Terminator-esque machine uprising recruiting their children.

As the artificial intelligence field develops, so do the laws that surround it. Children are at the forefront of the rise of AI and are vulnerable to its pitfalls. But as AI is used more and more often for educational purposes and as home assistants, parents cannot completely ignore this new technology.

Amy did not have to worry about AI when raising her kids (lucky duck), but Heather does, and the growing risk of AI is at the forefront of modern-day parental concerns. Here are some things we recommend for preparing your kids in the age of AI:

  1. Teach Critical Thinking: Encourage your children to question the information they receive online, including from AI systems. Teaching them to think critically about digital interactions will help them recognize when something seems off or inappropriate.
  1. Stay Informed: While you don’t need to be an AI expert, keeping up with the basics of how AI works, and its potential risks can go a long way. Being informed will help you have healthy conversations with your family about AI.
  1. Keep the Conversation Open: Create an environment where your kids feel that they can ask you questions about AI or otherwise. If they encounter something troubling, they should know they can turn to you for help without fear of judgement.
  1. Promote a Balanced Lifestyle: It’s hard to live a life without screens in this day and age. But encouraging activities that don’t involve screens, such as outdoor play, reading, or arts and crafts helps reduce reliance on digital devices and foster meaningful connections.
  1. Set Clear Digital Boundaries: Establish rules about which platforms and technologies are acceptable for your kids to use. Many devices have parental controls for children but, obviously, there are ways kids can still get around those limits. Regularly review these boundaries as your kids grow older and gain more independence.

Being aware of AI’s risks and talking to your children about those risks is the best route to prevent more dangerous situations. And, as always, Carter Law Group will work to hold manufacturers and large corporations responsible to keep you and your family safe.

*Update: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched an investigation into Character.AI and other companies over child privacy and safety practices in Texas.

Want to read more from Carter Law Group?

Read more

property owner

Can I Sue a Property Owner for a Crime Committed on Their Premises?

/0 Comments/in /by

The most common premises liability cases are slip-and-fall accidents where someone is injured on someone else’s property. But in some cases, premises liability can include responsibility for crimes committed by third parties on a property like an assault or a robbery. Aside from suing the criminal for damages, a plaintiff may even be able to sue the property owner of the location where it happened. This area of law is complex, balancing the rights of victims with property owners’ obligations to maintain safe premises. So, let’s break it down in plain English. 

Understanding Premises Liability 

First off, it’s important to understand the concept of premises liability. Premises liability cases are considered personal injury cases. Under Texas law, property owners have a responsibility to keep their premises safe for visitors. This could mean fixing a broken stair, putting up a wet floor sign, or making sure there’s proper lighting in a parking lot.  

If a visitor or customer is injured in a way that should have been prevented, they may have grounds to sue. But does this responsibility extend to protecting people from criminal acts committed by third parties, like a mugging in a parking lot or an assault at a bar? Sometimes, yes. 

For a successful premises liability lawsuit, you typically need to prove two things: 

1. The Crime Was Foreseeable 

Generally, in Texas, property owners are not liable for crimes committed by a third act. However, in 1998, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that property owners can be held liable if they knew or should have known about a potential danger and didn’t take reasonable steps to prevent it. In other words, the crime was foreseeable.  

For example, in the 1998 case, Timberwalk Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. Cain, Tammy Cain, a tenant at Timberwalk Apartments, was sexually assaulted by an intruder in her apartment. She sued the apartment complex owners, claiming they had not taken enough preventative security measures to prevent crimes like this.  

The Court established a set of rules, dubbed the “Timberwalk factors”, to determine foreseeability: 

Proximity: How close in distance the previous crimes were to the property in question. The closer the previous crimes occurred to the property, the more foreseeable it might be that similar crimes could happen there. 

Recency: How recently the prior crimes occurred. Crimes that happened more recently suggest a higher likelihood of recurrence compared to crimes that occurred a long time ago. 

Frequency: How often similar crimes have occurred in the area. A higher frequency of similar crimes could indicate a greater forseeability of such incidents happening on the property. 

Similarity: Whether the crimes were similar to the incident in question. For example, in the Timberwalk case, since the crime in question was a sexual assault, the court looked at whether there were other sex-related assaults in the area rather than unrelated crimes like property damage. 

Publicity: Whether the prior crimes were publicized or known to the property owner. If the property owner knew or should have known about the previous crimes, they might be held more accountable for not taking steps to prevent similar incidents. 

In Cain’s case, while the incident was tragic and the perpetrator was tried, the court ruled that the prior crime in the area did not make the specific assault foreseeable to the property owner.  

2. The Owner Was Negligent 

property owner

Even if the crime was foreseeable, you also need to show that the property owner was negligent in their response to this risk. For example, did they fail to fix broken locks, ignore lighting issues in a dark parking lot, or not hire adequate security despite knowing the risks? If they dropped the ball here, they could be held liable. 

It’s important to note that the measures taken by the property owners should be reasonable. For instance, businesses are not expected to be security fortresses. But they should have installed measures that another ordinary person in the same situation would have taken.  

Cain’s case was established on the basis that the owners of Timberwalk Apartments had been negligent in their security measures, allowing a dangerous crime to happen on their premises. She claimed that the owners should have stationed guards outside of the apartment and did not provide proper security including alarm systems and pin locks for sliding glass doors. However, the court ruled that Cain, herself, was the only one negligent and Timberwalk was not held liable.  

What Should You Do If You’ve Been a Victim? 

As you can see in the Timberwalk case, premises liability suits are difficult to navigate if you are not knowledgeable of the legal system. If you’ve been a victim of a crime on someone else’s property and you think the owner might be partially to blame, it’s a good idea to talk to a lawyer who specializes in premises liability. 

At Carter Law Group, we can help you figure out whether you have a case and what kind of evidence you’ll need. Things like police reports, security footage, and witness statements can all play a big role in proving your case. Call us today with your case to start your consultation. 

Interested in reading more from CLG? Check out our other blog posts:

Read more

transgender workers

Protections for Transgender Workers Are at Risk

/0 Comments/in , /by

As an employment discrimination lawyer, I’ve spent years fighting for the rights of marginalized workers, including the LGBTQ+ community. So, when I heard about Texas’s lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regarding transgender workers’ rights, I was not surprised, but disappointed. It’s yet another move by the conservative right to delegitimize the trans identity and the trans experience. 

transgender workers

If you’re unfamiliar with the case, in April of this year, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, challenged federal guidance issued by the EEOC, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, the EEOC’s guidance interprets Title VII to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, including protections for transgender employees. 

Its updated 2024 guidelines aim to more clearly define harassment in the workplace for transgender workers and their rights. They state that it is considered unlawful workplace harassment when an employer denies accommodation to an employee based on gender identity. These violations could look like 

  • Repeatedly refusing to use or purposefully mistaking a person’s pronouns; 
  • Banning an employee from using the bathroom of their gender identity, and 
  • Harassing someone for not presenting themselves in a manner that is stereotypically associated with that person’s sex. 

Two weeks after the guidance was published, 18 states, led by Tennessee, filed lawsuits against the EEOC, stating that the commission has no authority to make these kinds of amendments because they were not approved by Congress.  

One week after Tennessee sued the EEOC, Texas AG Ken Paxton joined the party with very similar reasons to the other states but also citing a violation of state sovereignty. In the suit, Texas cited multiple previous decisions that support their move for dismissing the guidance. 

Background: The Bostock Decision and 2021 Guidance 

To understand the stakes, it’s important to go back to 2020, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County. In that decision, the Court held that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination extends to sexual orientation and gender identity. In other words, it’s illegal under federal law to fire someone for being gay or transgender. This was a major victory for LGBTQ+ rights, but the decision didn’t cover every issue that might come up in the workplace. 

In fact, what Paxton and his legal team have jumped on is that the Court specifically decided not to make any rulings about policies relating to bathrooms, dress code or pronouns. 

That’s where the EEOC’s 2021 guidance comes in. Following the Bostock ruling, the EEOC expanded on what workplace protections should look like for transgender employees, very similar to their guidance in 2024. Ken Paxton and his team filed suit for this one as well and, more importantly, won their case. Again, not surprised, but disappointed given that the judge of the case was handpicked by Donald Trump.  

What is important to grasp is that the dismissal of the 2021 Guidance has grave implications for the most recent lawsuit. The Texas Attorney General is bringing this case to the same court that already threw out similar EEOC guidance two years ago, so there’s a good chance the court might strike down the guidance again. And under the new Trump administration, which has openly opposed expanding trans rights, who knows what could happen. They could even go as far as issuing a nationwide order to stop the enforcement of gender identity rules altogether. 

The Human Impact 

Of course, it’s still hard to say how it will play out. But one thing is clear: this case could have wide-reaching implications for the rights of transgender employees across the country. 

As a lawyer representing employees who face discrimination, I see the real-world effects of these legal battles. Discrimination isn’t an abstract concept, it’s something that affects people’s everyday lives, livelihoods, and mental health. Transgender employees already face higher rates of workplace discrimination, harassment, and job loss compared to their cisgender counterparts. 

Lawsuits like this one from Texas send a dangerous message: that it’s acceptable to deny transgender individuals their basic rights in the workplace. It’s a move that could lead to increased stigmatization and discrimination, especially in states that are more hostile to LGBTQ+ rights. 

It’s not about convenience or personal preferences of employers or co-workers; it’s about ensuring that transgender employees are treated with dignity and respect, just like anyone else. When states push back against protections like those in the EEOC’s guidance, they’re effectively saying that transgender employees don’t deserve the same level of respect and fairness as everyone else. 

In the end, this is more than just a legal fight—it’s about standing up for the basic human rights of transgender employees. And as long as states and employers continue to challenge those rights, lawyers like me will keep fighting back. 

If you believe you are a victim of discrimination or harassment at work, contact the lawyers at Carter Law Group to fight for you and your rights. Call us today or submit a questionnaire to begin your consultation. 

Want to read more from Carter Law Group?

Read more

overtime pay

Expecting Overtime Pay in the New Year? Think Again.

/in , /by

overtime pay
The fight for fair overtime pay has taken a disappointing turn, leaving millions of workers and employers in limbo. Just months after new regulations promised to raise the salary threshold for overtime eligibility—a move hailed as a major win for American workers—a federal judge in Texas has thrown a wrench into the plan.  

On November 15, 2024, Judge Sean Jordan struck down the Department of Labor’s (DOL) updated rules, arguing that they overstepped authority by prioritizing salary levels over job duties. The decision not only halts a planned increase in January 2025 but also rolls back changes already implemented in July 2024. As a result, businesses nationwide are scrambling to adjust, with tough decisions ahead about how to navigate the fallout. 

If you’re a salaried worker in the U.S. making between $35,568 to $58,656 a year ($684-$1,128 per week), you may have just lost your overtime for the New Year.  

How Do I Know If I’m Affected? 

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets rules for who qualifies for overtime pay—typically, time-and-a-half for any hours worked over 40 per week. For most hourly workers, the rule is straightforward: work extra, get extra. But salaried employees? It’s not that simple. 

The DOL says that if you’re an executive, administrator, or professional meeting specific criteria, you qualify for the “white-collar exemption” and do not receive overtime pay. To figure out if you’re in that group, there’s a three-prong test: 

  1. You’re paid on a salary basis: Your paycheck is the same no matter how many hours you work. 
  1. Your job duties meet exemption standards: Think managers, high-level decision-makers, and specialized professionals like doctors or lawyers. 
  1. You earn more than a specific salary threshold: This is the hotly debated number. 

In 2019, the threshold was set at $35,568 per year (roughly $684 per week, or about $17/hour). If you made less than this, you did not meet the “white-collar exemption and were entitled to overtime pay. But what happens when the cost of living goes up, and that threshold doesn’t? 

The DOL’s Push to Expand Overtime  

In April 2024, the DOL decided it was time for a change. They announced plans to raise the salary threshold in two steps: 

  • July 1, 2024: $43,888 annually 
  • January 1, 2025: $58,656 annually 

These changes were set to make millions of workers eligible for overtime pay—an estimated 4 million nationwide. The DOL also wanted to avoid this back-and-forth debate by introducing automatic updates every three years. 

For many, this was a win. Workers earning between $35,568 and $58,656 would no longer be exempt, meaning they could finally claim overtime pay for those grueling 50- or 60-hour workweeks. Employers? Well, they’d have to make adjustments—either paying overtime, raising salaries above the new threshold, or cutting back on hours to dodge extra costs. 

Texas Sues the DOL 

Just as workers were adjusting to the $43,888 threshold, the regulations hit a major roadblock. On November 15, 2024, a federal judge in Texas, Judge Sean Jordan ruled in favor of Texas in a lawsuit and struck those regulations down. 

He found that the DOL did not have the authority to make these changes. He believed that focusing so heavily on salary thresholds ignored the job responsibilities that define whether someone is truly “exempt.”  

The ruling rescinded both the July 2024 increase and the planned January 2025 bump. Overnight, not only Texas workers, who thought they were finally eligible for overtime, but also millions of workers nationwide lost that eligibility. 

What Happens Now? 

With the judge’s ruling, the overtime threshold reverts to the 2019 level: $35,568. Employers and employees alike are left scrambling to figure out what this means. 

Some employers might start requiring salaried workers to track their hours, a move that could feel frustrating to professionals who’ve enjoyed flexibility. Others might cut salaries or restructure job roles to maintain their bottom lines. Without the higher thresholds, many are expecting to go back to long hours without extra pay.  

Of course, the DOL could appeal Judge Jordan’s ruling. But the clock is ticking. There may not be enough time for the appeal to be heard before Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025. And it’s unlikely his administration will push for a higher threshold. After all, Trump’s previous DOL settled on a threshold that was far below Obama’s proposal. 

What Should Workers and Employers Do? 

For workers: Know your rights. If your salary falls below the $35,568 threshold, you’re entitled to overtime pay, regardless of your job title. Keep an eye on legal updates—obviously, things can change quickly. 

For employers: Plan ahead. Even if the threshold increase is on hold for now, it’s clear that changes to overtime rules are a priority for many policymakers. Proactively evaluating roles, salaries, and workloads can help you stay ahead of the curve. 

Get Legal Help 

From a legal standpoint, this change, while disheartening, is not surprising. Employment discrimination lawyers have a key role in ensuring that all employees, especially the most vulnerable, are treated fairly as businesses adapt to these changes. Denying overtime privileges can be a form of discrimination in certain circumstances. If you believe you have been discriminated against at work, contact Carter Law Group or fill out our questionnaire.  

 
[/av_textblock]

transgender workers

Protections for Transgender Workers Are at Risk

/
0 Comments
Read more
gun control

In the Wake of a School Shooting, We Need Gun Control

/in , , , /by

As a law firm founded by mothers, we are deeply committed to protecting women, children, and families. One of the ways we do this is by holding corporate manufacturers accountable for producing unsafe products that pose risks to the most vulnerable in our community. Whether it’s toxic baby food, a faulty medical device or an unsafe home appliance, we have long fought to ensure that manufacturers take responsibility for the harm their products cause. But when it comes to guns, the legal landscape is different and more complex. 

school shooting

Unlike other products, as we all know, firearms are constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment. Texas has some of the loosest gun laws in the country, no longer requiring people to own a license to carry a handgun in most public spaces. Texas also has the highest number of school shootings in America totaling 61 incidents since 2008, with a rate of .21 shootings per 100,000 people. 

To us, this comparison is no coincidence. Just because firearms are constitutionally protected does not mean they should be free from regulation. Constitutionally protected rights are regulated all the time—just think about free speech.  

The First Amendment protects your right to say almost whatever you want to say, almost whenever you want to say it. But, despite that constitutional protection, you cannot, for instance, walk into a crowded theatre and yell FIRE. We’re no strangers to constitutionally protected rights being regulated for the safety and protection of our community as a whole. 

We believe that, much like cars or pharmaceuticals, guns should be subject to more stringent monitoring aimed at preventing harm, particularly to vulnerable populations like children. 

While we have established obstacles to challenging public gun use, there are still things we can do to prevent gun-related incidents. We should all be able to agree on effective gun control measures that promote responsible gun ownership. Here are my thoughts, from one gun owner to the rest: 

Common Sense Gun Reform 

Implement and Enforce Universal Background Checks 

Implementing background checks and closing the loopholes around them can greatly reduce violent gun-related incidents. These checks prevent individuals with a history of violence, mental illness, or criminal activity from purchasing firearms in the first place.  

In 2017, a local man in Sutherland Springs, Texas shot and killed 26 people and wounded 22 others at the local First Baptist Church, the deadliest shooting in Texas history. It was revealed later in the investigation that the man had previously been convicted of domestic violence.  

A thorough background check would have found this red flag and may have been the difference in sparing innocent lives. This, of course, is just one example of many. Would this mean that mass shootings never happen? No. Would this prevent some? Yes. And that should be enough. 

Checking Age and Increasing Age Limit 

Many gun-related incidents could be avoided by more proactive behavior from gun sellers. As well as submitting detailed background checks, checking the age of the buyer is the very least that a firearm retailer should do. In the United States, the legal age to purchase a firearm is 18. We could begin by upping that age – how we can buy a shotgun before a margarita is baffling.  

We would, of course, still have the issue of minors buying them illegally. Enforcing any age ban requires gun sellers to follow the rules. 

In 2018, a 17-year-old student at Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas, was able to buy ammunition online unprompted to prove his age, ultimately killing eight students and two teachers at his school. Santa Fe acts as an example of the responsibility that gun retailers have to the safety of the public. Would he have gotten bullets somewhere else? Maybe. Maybe not. All we know is that he illegally got them after the gun seller illegally sold him bullets and he used those bullets to kill eight children.  

Safer Storage Laws 

One of the most effective measures to protect children from gun accidents is the enactment and enforcement of safe storage laws. In Texas, it is illegal to provide firearm access to children; however, there is no specification for how they should be stored, leaving room for dangerously negligent interpretation. The Washington Post found that of the 180 shootings committed by juveniles since Columbine, 86% of the weapons were obtained in the homes of parents, friends, or relatives. I don’t have all of the information on how each of those weapons was obtained from each of those households.  

Recently, in Georgia, the father of a 14-year-old school shooting suspect faces two counts of second-degree murder for knowingly providing his son with an assault weapon, leading to four deaths at Apalachee High School. And earlier this month, a six-year-old in Memphis, Tennessee, brought a loaded gun to class which his mother claimed to have stashed underneath their couch cushions.   

In Texas, parents who fail to keep guns away from their children are liable to face a Class A or Class C misdemeanor depending on the incident. But you are not required to show proof of a gun safe or other gun storage system before being allowed to legally purchase a gun.  

Gun owners, especially parents, should be held accountable for negligence and they should ensure that minors do not have unsupervised access to firearms, whether at home or otherwise. People’s lives are at stake. A gun safe or safe storage system is not too much to require when we consider what is at risk. Would gun safes prevent every mass shooting or school shooting? No. Would it prevent some? I think it’s ridiculous to say it wouldn’t. 

Gun Insurance 

Another commonsense move might be requiring all gun owners to have insurance for their firearms. It would give not only victims of gun violence but also gun owners some extra protection in case something goes wrong. Just like car insurance, if there’s an accident—like the gun goes off by mistake or it gets stolen—insurance would help cover the costs. Plus, it would encourage safer practices since you’ve got a reason to be extra careful with how you handle and store your gun. 

Now, again, car accidents still happen every day and reckless driving is almost a given on any Texas road. Implementing insurance on guns wouldn’t prevent every single shooting from happening. But it could make people think about their guns more as a dangerous liability.  

Constitutional Considerations 

Gun control reforms are often met with resistance due to the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms. However, courts have consistently upheld the notion that reasonable regulations on gun ownership do not violate constitutional rights.  

The U.S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, affirmed that while the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership, it is not an absolute right. The ruling emphasized that certain regulations, such as restrictions on felons owning firearms or the prohibition of carrying firearms in sensitive places like schools, are constitutionally permissible. 

As such, measures like universal background checks, age restrictions, and safe storage laws are well within the scope of the Constitution. These reforms do not strip individuals of their rights to own firearms but instead promote responsible ownership and reduce the risk of harm to society, particularly children. 

Write to Your Representatives 

We’re moms with children on school campuses, ranging from kindergarten to college. And we respect gun ownership – some of us own several guns ourselves. But pretending like common sense gun reform is too restrictive on the Second Amendment is just nonsense.  

If you, like us at Carter Law Group, want to see more reform and less violence, feel free to copy and paste the following letter and send it to your local government representative. Find your Representative in the House and your Representative in the Congress by zip code. It only takes one voice to make a difference.  

 

Dear Representative, 

I, like millions of Americans and many others around the world, am horrified and devastated to watch and read about the tragic shootings that plague our communities and continue to grow in number. It has come to a point where I feel I must speak and act. I write to you today for stricter gun control to prevent another shooting like Apalachee Elementary School or Robb Elementary School from happening again. 

I understand that gun control is challenged greatly, especially here in Texas, by those who do not wish their constitutional rights inhibited. However, we must consider the growing toll and negative impact that guns have on public health. Promoting and enforcing responsible gun ownership is not unconstitutional and for that reason, I ask you to support the following reforms: 

  1. Enforce universal background checks for all gun-related purchases. 
  1. Safer storage laws that require gun sellers to demonstrate the use of a lock and offer to sell one during every firearm sale. 
  1. Raise the penalty for child access to a firearm to a 3rd-degree felony rather than a misdemeanor in cases where access results in death or serious bodily injury. 

As representatives of our community, elected by the people for the people, we look to you for guidance and to represent us truly. It is your obligation to make decisions for the good of the public’s safety. You have the power to make these changes, which is why we ask you to enact impactful gun reform today.   

Sincerely, 

___________________ 

Constituent 

 

To read more from Carter Law Group:

Civil Liabilities for Gun Violence in Schools (clgtrial.com)

A Call to Action: Protecting Our Children from Hate Crimes Under Title IX | Carter Law Group (clgtrial.com)

Understanding the Rights of Underage Workers: Federal and Texas Child Labor Laws | Carter Law Group (clgtrial.com)

Hispanic workers

Commemorating the Wins and Losses of Hispanic Workers in History

/in /by

Even though the federal holiday of Hispanic Heritage Month only spans from September 15 to October 15, the fight for Hispanic civil and labor rights in America has persisted for the past century. As a lawyer that advocates for workers who have been discriminated against, I’ve seen firsthand how the fight for civil rights continues to shape the lives of Latinos in the workplace.  

Hispanics make up 40.2% of Texas’s population, the largest group in the state, according to the 2022 census. They are also 30% more likely to die from a work injury than other workers.  

Hispanic workers are overrepresented in high-risk but essential industries like construction, agriculture, transportation, and manufacturing. These jobs often involve hazardous conditions that greatly increase the risk of serious injuries and fatalities. Oftentimes, employers will also neglect to make sure their employees, especially those who don’t speak English fluently, know their rights and proper safety protocol. 

Despite these alarming numbers, the state of Hispanic workers’ rights has come so far from where they began. Hispanic Heritage Month seems like the perfect time to reflect on the groundbreaking civil rights cases and events that have paved the way for equality, especially for Latino workers. These cases, including both wins and losses for the Latino community, are a reminder that the legal battles fought for justice still impact the rights of Latinos in the workforce today. 

Hispanic workers rights

Pecan Shellers Strike: Wages and Working Conditions 

In 1938, about 12,000 pecan shellers, mostly Mexican American women, decided to walk out of their jobs in San Antonio, citing drastic pay and grueling working conditions. Spanning three months, the strike attracted nationwide attention and incited confrontations between the government, pecan companies and workers. 

Eventually, the strike led to a victory as wages were raised and working conditions improved. It also led to the passing of The Fair Labor Relations Act which effectively raised the minimum wage to 25 cents per hour, which would not be worth much today, even after conversion, but was a significant step forward for workers’ rights in history. 

Mendez v. Westminster: The Fight Against Segregation 

Before Brown v. Board of Education challenged school segregation for African Americans, Mendez v. Westminster (1947) fought against segregated schools for Mexican Americans. This case centered around Sylvia Mendez, a young girl who was denied entry into a white school in California because of her Mexican heritage. 

The Mendez family, along with other Latino families, sued the school district, arguing that segregating Mexican American students was unconstitutional. The federal court ruled in their favor, marking one of the first successful desegregation cases in U.S. history. 

While Mendez v. Westminster was about education, its impact stretches far beyond the classroom. As a discrimination lawyer, I often see the echoes of this fight in the workplace. Segregation and exclusion, whether in schools or jobs, have lasting effects on the opportunities available to Latino workers.  

National Farm Workers Association (NFWA): Advocating for Workers’ Rights 

The NFWA, founded in 1962 by César Chávez and Dolores Huerta, was a game-changer for Hispanic workers’ rights, especially in the agricultural sector. Before the NFWA, farm workers, many of whom were Mexican American or Mexican immigrants, endured grueling working conditions, long hours, and meager pay without any legal protections or the ability to collectively bargain. The NFWA aimed to change that by organizing farm workers and advocating for better wages, improved working conditions, and the right to unionize. 

The group organized a particularly successful grape strike from 1966 to 1977, spreading awareness about the Chicano movement across the nation and around the world. Their actions set the precedent for collective bargaining and union representation in industries where Hispanic workers are often overrepresented and vulnerable to exploitation. The NFWA’s activism laid the groundwork for labor rights that many farm workers now benefit from, such as mandated rest breaks, access to clean drinking water, and the right to a safe working environment. 

Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Co.: Immigration Status and Employment 

In Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Co. (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether an employer could refuse to hire a legal resident of Mexican descent because they were not a U.S. citizen. The Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on national origin but does not prevent employers from requiring U.S. citizenship as a condition for employment. So, an employer can refuse to hire someone that is not a U.S. citizen but cannot refuse someone just for being Latino. 

While this case was not a win for the plaintiff, it was an important moment in the ongoing fight to clarify the relationship between immigration status and employment rights. Today, immigrant workers—many of whom are Latino—continue to face discrimination not just because of their race or national origin, but because of their perceived or actual immigration status. 

Employers often use immigration status to exploit or discriminate against Latino workers, particularly in industries like agriculture, construction, and hospitality, where immigrant labor is common. In a society where the subject of immigration is a constant hot spot, cases like Espinoza remind us that while there have been important victories, the struggle for equal treatment of immigrant workers continues. 

EEOC v. Premier Operator Services, Inc.: Language Discrimination in the Workplace 

Fast-forward to the year 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a claim against Premier Operator Services, a telecommunications company in Dallas, on behalf of 13 Hispanic employees. The workers filed suit after the company required all conversations be held in English, even during lunch and other breaks, even though, ironically, the employees were hired for their abilities to speak Spanish to clients. The workers who refused to sign the language-restriction document and filed discriminatory charges were promptly fired without notice. 

The EEOC argued that this was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The court ruled in favor of the EEOC, awarding the workers $700,000 in damages. Many Latino workers face hostile environments or discriminatory policies simply because they speak Spanish or have accents. This case was a huge win for Hispanic workers and underscores the importance of enforcing anti-discrimination laws and ensuring that all workers, regardless of their background, can work in an environment free from hostility and prejudice. 

Continuing the Fight for Workplace Equality 

Hispanic Heritage Month is a time to celebrate the rich cultural contributions of the Latino community, but it’s also a time to reflect on the legal battles that have been fought—and continue to be fought—to secure equal rights. Each of these cases serves as a reminder that the law plays a vital role in dismantling discrimination and ensuring that all workers, regardless of their background, are treated fairly. 

Our law firm understands the unique challenges that Hispanic employees face, from language barriers to unfair treatment, and we are dedicated to protecting your rights. If you’ve been a victim of work discrimination, our experienced team will advocate for you. Call us today or submit a questionnaire to begin your consultation. 

Read more like this:

Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA): What Is It And How Does It Affect Texas Employees?

A Call to Action: Protecting Our Children from Hate Crimes Under Title IX

Understanding the Rights of Underage Workers: Federal and Texas Child Labor Laws 

abortion

Texas Sues HIPPA For Protecting Abortion Medical Records

/in , /by

In September this year, Texas, that is, Ken Paxton, sued the Federal Health and Human Services (HHS) Department over a new bill that shields medical records of women who go out of state for abortion procedures from state investigators. Speaking as a mother and a legal defender of women, families and children, this lawsuit converges on the rights of women and has dangerous implications for the privacy and freedom of the general public. 

Abortion

What is the Privacy Rule? 

The lawsuit filed by Paxton challenges two rules set by HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996): the 2000 Privacy Rule and the updated 2024 Privacy Rule. 

2000 Privacy Rule 

This rule, which became effective in 2001, should be familiar to anyone who’s been to the doctor and needed to fill out a bunch of forms. The law sets the national standards for the protection of individuals’ medical records and other personal health information. In other words, this is why, after the age of 18, other members of your family or close confidants need written permission from you to view your medical records.  

Other medical entities like healthcare providers and health plans may access the minimal necessary information about you as a patient to allow for convenient and high-quality treatment but its main goal is to safeguard patient privacy. Paxton’s lawsuit challenges the section that prevents disclosure of this information to state investigators/law enforcement without the individual’s authorization. 

2024 Privacy Rule 

The 2024 Privacy Rule, also called “the Final Rule”, makes an amendment to the original 2000 rule and was set as a response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the federal right to abortion and led to state abortion bans and investigations across the country. The rule, made effective in June this year, prohibits state investigators from viewing the records of women who travel out of state to receive abortions in states where they are legal. The rule essentially protects the information of women in states where abortion is illegal, like Texas.  

In the lawsuit, Paxton claims that this is a violation of the original law that allows information to be revealed to states for law enforcement purposes. The lawsuit goes on to include “gender dysphoria” procedures in the term “Reproductive Health Care”, targeting transgender surgeries along with abortions. 

Abortion in Texas is considered illegal except in extreme cases where the mother is at risk of losing her life or is at great health risk because of the pregnancy. Women who seek or receive care will not suffer from criminal charges. Providers, on the other hand, could face losing their license and up to a life sentence in prison.  

Paxton asserts that the HHS has acted unlawfully, and that the federal government is “attempting to undermine Texas’s law enforcement capabilities”.  

What would it mean if Texas won? 

If Texas wins the lawsuit against the 2024 Privacy Rule, a few big things could happen: 

Stronger State Control Over Reproductive Laws and Overall 

At the base level, a victory for Texas would allow them access to medical records related to reproductive health, like abortion services and gender-transitions, for the purpose of potentially prosecuting individuals. That means less privacy and less protection for Texas patients. 

It would also mean a significant shift in state power in general. Since the inception of America, the fight over states’ rights versus federal rights has divided the country on who has the power. This lawsuit could affirm Texas’s ability to enact and enforce its own laws, especially regarding abortion and reproductive health. It might raise questions as to the validity of federal rules, like HIPAA. 

Weaker Federal Privacy Protections 

A ruling in favor of Texas would roll back the 2024 rule but it could also put the original HIPAA rules at risk as well. This could allow law enforcement and other state agencies to more easily access sensitive health information without the same safeguards required by the federal rule. As of now, an attestation must be signed by healthcare entities to ensure that medical records are not being used for prohibited purposes. It’s possible, though, that after the ruling, these things could be undermined. 

Confusion for Health Providers and Patients 

Like many policies in Texas, the ambiguity of the language and regulations leave those they are affecting in tough and confusing spots. Doctors and clinics may feel conflicted in having to follow federal rules that protect patient privacy and also state laws that might demand access to that same information. They could face legal consequences no matter which law they choose to follow. 

Additionally, patients who need an abortion but live in states where it is illegal, without the option of leaving the state to do it, might look for options that are unsafe and unregulated.  

In short, a win for Texas on this lawsuit would mean a loss for reproductive rights and for the American people. 

At Carter Law Group, we care about your rights. As defenders of women and sexual assault victims, as mothers, this subject hits close to our hearts. That’s why you can trust us to fight for your rights. If you’re in need of a lawyer, call us today.

Read similar articles below:

Civil Liabilities for Gun Violence in Schools

Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA): What Is It And How Does It Affect Texas Employees?

Is the Supreme Court’s West Point Decision a Flower Amongst the Affirmative Action Rubble?

Is the Supreme Court’s West Point Decision a Flower Amongst the Affirmative Action Rubble?

/in /by

After dropping a bombshell on affirmative action last summer (SFFA v. Harvard), did the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. USMA At West Point, Et Al. push a little flower up through the affirmative action rubble?

The Supreme Court on Friday February 2, 2024 rejected an emergency appeal seeking to force a change West Point’s admissions process at West Point. The order, issued without any noted dissents or explanations, comes as the military academy is making decisions on whom to admit for the Class of 2028.

Flower with the words Affirmative Action blooming up from a destroyed field

Students for Fair Admissions v. USMA At West Point, Et Al.:

The case centers on the admissions policies of West Point, which, like many other educational institutions, had implemented measures aimed at fostering a diverse student body. These policies were challenged on the grounds that they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, sparking a legal debate that culminated in the Supreme Court ruling. The question was: Do these diversity measures hold up under the Constitution?

The Supreme Court Weighs In

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case has been anticipated as a bellwether for the future of affirmative action in the United States. In its ruling, the Court navigated complex issues of constitutional law, educational policy, and societal values concerning race, diversity, and equal opportunity.

The Supreme Court’s decision is more than a verdict on West Point; it’s a signal flare for the future of affirmative action across the country. It’s not just about who gets into prestigious military academies; it’s about the very fabric of diversity and inclusion efforts nationwide.

The Ripple Effect

The ruling has several key implications for affirmative action across the United States:

  • New Legal Playbook: This ruling is the new go-to for courts handling affirmative action cases. It’s the Supreme Court’s latest word on what’s okay and what’s not when it comes to diversity in education. The decision sets a significant precedent that will likely influence how lower courts evaluate affirmative action policies in education and potentially beyond. It offers a new interpretive lens through which the legality of such policies will be assessed.
  • Schools on Notice: For educational institutions, especially federally funded military academies, the ruling necessitates a reassessment of admissions policies. Schools everywhere, especially those getting federal funds, need to take a hard look at their admissions policies. It’s time to get creative in fostering diversity without stepping on legal landmines.
  • Debate 2.0: The ruling has thrown gasoline on the fiery debate over the best way to achieve a diverse student body. The decision reignites the national debate on how best to achieve diversity within educational institutions and more broadly within society. It challenges policymakers, educators, and legal professionals to consider how goals of diversity and inclusion can be met within the framework set by the Supreme Court.

What’s Next for Affirmative Action ?

This isn’t the end of the story for affirmative action; it’s more like the plot just thickened – it’s not the end of the conversation on affirmative action but rather a new chapter. It prompts a critical examination of the means by which diversity and inclusion are pursued in education and other sectors.

Educational institutions are back at the drawing board, brainstorming how to welcome diversity through the front door without getting tangled in legal red tape. Think broader than race and ethnicity—think socioeconomic factors, life experiences, and more.

Legal professionals and scholars will undoubtedly continue to analyze this decision for its broader implications on affirmative action policies. As society evolves, so too will the legal frameworks that govern it, requiring ongoing dialogue and adaptation to ensure that the values of diversity and equal opportunity are upheld.

The Supreme Court’s West Point decision is yet another game-changer for affirmative action. It’s challenging everyone to rethink how we’re achieve diversity and inclusion, making it clear that the quest for a more inclusive society is far from over. Strap in, folks; it’s going to be an interesting ride.

To learn more about racial discrimination, visit our educational webpage here: https://clgtrial.com/employment-discrimination/racial-discrimination/

Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA): What Is It And How Does It Affect Texas Employees?

/in , /by

The Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), enacted in 1983, was designed to combat discrimination in workplaces, the TCHRA is a crucial piece of legislation that aligns with federal laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.  As always with plaintiffs in Texas, the legislature giveth and the legislature taketh away.  Usually far more of the latter than the former.

Key Provisions of the TCHRA: The Good

Employment Discrimination

At its core, the TCHRA addresses employment discrimination. It applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. The act makes it illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoffs, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

Disability Discrimination

The TCHRA also includes provisions for individuals with disabilities, aligning with the Americans with Disabilities Act. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, as long as it does not cause undue hardship to the business.

Retaliation and Harassment

Retaliation against individuals who file discrimination claims, participate in an investigation, or oppose discriminatory practices is prohibited under the TCHRA. Additionally, the act covers harassment on the basis of a protected characteristic, creating a legal obligation for employers to ensure a workplace free from hostile or offensive environments.

Enforcement for Employees

The Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division is responsible for enforcing the TCHRA. Individuals who believe they have been subjected to employment discrimination can file a complaint with this division, triggering an investigation process. If the commission finds evidence of discrimination, it attempts to resolve the issue through mediation or other means. If unresolved, legal action may be pursued.

Key Challenges of the TCHRA: The Bad

Stringent Filing Deadlines

One of the primary challenges for employees under the TCHRA is the stringent deadline for filing discrimination claims. The act requires that complaints be filed within a relatively short period from the alleged act of discrimination. This tight timeline can be a significant hurdle, particularly for those who may not immediately recognize the legal implications of their situation or for whom navigating the legal system is daunting.

Administrative Exhaustion Requirement

Before proceeding to court, employees must first file their discrimination claim with the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division (TWC-CRD) and allow the agency to investigate. This requirement, known as “administrative exhaustion,” can be time-consuming and may delay the ability to seek immediate redress through the courts. For some employees, this process can be disheartening and may dissuade them from pursuing their claim further.

Limited Damages and Remedies

The TCHRA caps the damages that can be awarded in successful discrimination cases, which can be a deterrent for employees seeking full compensation for their losses. These caps may not always fully cover the losses, especially in cases of severe discrimination or long-term career impacts. This limitation can affect the decision of employees to initiate or continue litigation, knowing the potential limitations on the outcome.

Burden of Proof

Employees bear the burden of proof in discrimination cases under the TCHRA. Proving discrimination can be complex and requires a thorough understanding of legal standards and evidence gathering. Employees without legal representation may find this burden particularly challenging.

Cost of Legal Representation

The cost of legal representation can be prohibitive for many employees. While the TCHRA aims to protect workers’ rights, the reality of legal expenses can be a significant barrier, especially for those with limited financial resources.

TCHRA’s Unintended Consequences:  The Ugly

Discouragement of Claims

The procedural and financial challenges posed by the TCHRA may discourage employees from filing legitimate discrimination claims. This unintended consequence can undermine the very purpose of the Act, which is to provide a remedy for workplace discrimination.

Employer Leverage

In some cases, the complexities and challenges of the TCHRA process can inadvertently provide employers with leverage. Employers with more resources and legal expertise may be better positioned to navigate the TCHRA’s requirements, potentially disadvantaging employees in disputes.

While the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act represents a significant effort to address workplace discrimination, its implementation reveals a more nuanced impact on employees seeking legal recourse. The procedural requirements, limited remedies, and legal complexities can pose significant challenges, sometimes making it difficult for employees to fully exercise their rights under the Act.

Victims of employment discrimination can be entitled to back pay, front pay, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and/or job reinstatement. But timing for a discrimination case is critical – a federal worker must generally file a complaint with the EEO office of their agency within 45 days of the discriminatory act and other workers generally have 180 to 300 days. Contact a Dallas, Texas discrimination lawyer at Carter Law Group, to immediately begin building a strong and effective case.

To set up a consultation, just submit our Employment Intake Questionnaire.

Lung Disease in Countertop Fabricators: 4 Primary Risk Factors of Deadly Disease

/in , /by

Silicosis associated with inhalation of respirable crystalline silica among engineered stone countertop fabrication workers is an emerging health concern.  Silicosis, a debilitating lung disease caused by exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS), is a severe concern for countertop fabricators.

Countertop fabricators are at extreme risk of developing silicosis, a deadly lung disease.

Silicosis is a lung disease caused by the inhalation of crystalline silica dust, which is produced during the cutting, grinding, or polishing of materials like granite and quartz. The fine silica particles are so small that they can easily penetrate deep into the lungs, causing inflammation and scarring. Silicosis develops over time, often silently, with symptoms not appearing until years after exposure. For countertop fabricators, the risk of silicosis is a growing concern, as the demand for stone countertops continues to rise.

Countertop fabricators are particularly vulnerable to silicosis due to the nature of their work. They are routinely exposed to high levels of RCS while cutting and shaping stone slabs. The primary risk factors include:

Countertop Fabricator’s and Employer’s Lack of Awareness: Many fabricators are unaware of the risks associated with silica exposure and may not take adequate precautions.  Silicosis is notorious for its delayed onset of symptoms, which can take years to manifest. This makes it difficult for countertop fabricators to connect their health issues to workplace exposure.  Many fabricators may not even realize the risks they face, leading to underreporting of illnesses and limited data on the true extent of the problem.

Inadequate Ventilation: Without adequate ventilation, workers are exposed to elevated levels of airborne silica dust, which significantly increases their risk of developing silicosis, as well as other respiratory and lung-related diseases.  OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations require employers to provide a safe working environment. Inadequate ventilation can result in compliance issues and potential legal consequences.

Prolonged Exposure Leads to Serious Lung Disease: Countertop fabrication often involves long hours of continuous work, leading to prolonged exposure to silica dust.  Prolonged exposure to silica dust presents significant health risks, primarily due to its ability to enter the respiratory system and cause serious health problems.

Lack of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Failure to use appropriate PPE, such as respirators and dust masks, can exacerbate the risk of inhalation.  Workers should wear appropriate respiratory protection, such as N95 respirators or higher-grade respirators designed to filter out fine silica particles. Fit testing and proper training on respirator use are essential.

Silicosis is a hidden threat that countertop fabricators face daily, often without realizing it. The lack of awareness about this potentially life-threatening disease is a significant concern for the industry. By increasing education and training, enforcing safety measures, providing regular health screenings, and advocating for support systems, we can begin to address this issue and ensure that the health and well-being of countertop fabricators are safeguarded, alongside their remarkable craftsmanship. It’s time to make the invisible threat of silicosis visible and protect those who create the beauty in our homes.

For more information about respirable crystalline silica in the workplace, go to the NIOSH Crystalline Silica web page or the CDC Silicosis in the Workplace page.

If you’ve been diagnosed with silicosis—sometimes also referred to pulmonary fibrosis or diagnosed in connection with pneumoconiosis or interstitial lung disease (ILD)—an attorney at Carter Law Group can protect your legal rights and fight to get you and your family the compensation you deserve.

Please visit our Education and Resources page for additional information on how silica causes disease, your silicosis diagnosis, government regulations related to silica and silica exposure, and other information and educational tools related to your injuries, your potential lawsuit, and how Carter Law Group can help you.